45 consideration of evidence, and to have their requests effectively examined by a court that, within the judicial hierarchy, has the authority to review judgments and decisions. In the instant case, because of the restrictions that the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation itself described, César Alberto Mendoza did not get a review of his conviction for correction of any possible errors the respective judge may have made; the State thus violated his right under Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations undertaken in articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. 2.2 Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza 203. As previously recounted, three cassation motions were filed to challenge the ruling that sentenced Lucas Matías Mendoza and Claudio David Núñez to life imprisonment and confinement for life, respectively: i) the first was on behalf of Lucas Matías Mendoza and was filed by his private defense counsel; ii) the second was on behalf of Claudio David Núñez and was filed by his court-appointed public defender; and iii) the third was on behalf of both and was filed by the Juvenile Public Defender’s Office. 204. In the first of these motions, Lucas Matías Mendoza’s private defense attorney alleged, inter alia, the court’s misapprehension of the facts and the evidence and that certain pieces of evidence were improper. She also took issue with the legal grounds upon which the sentence was based and invoked the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 205. In the second cassation motion, Claudio David Núñez’ court-appointed public defender alleged that the sentence was arbitrary because of a lack of sufficient legal grounds, and specifically pointed to the fact that Article 4 of Law 22,278, allowing the court to reduce the sentence, was not applied. She further alleged that the evidence was inadequately and arbitrarily weighed and asserted that too much weight had been given to circumstantial evidence. 206. In the third cassation motion, the Juvenile Public Defender’s Office claimed that Article 4 of Law 22,278 had not been properly applied. It asserted that the judges in the case had the authority to prolong the period during which Lucas Matías Mendoza and Claudio David Núñez were under observation, thereby giving them the opportunity to demonstrate the progress they had made in their re-socialization process, a factor that would have had to be taken into account at sentencing. 207. The court that decided whether an appeal would proceed to a higher court denied all three motions. The main argument in dismissing the first two was that cassation motions cannot be used to challenge matters of fact and the weighing of evidence. In the case of the third motion, the court that decided whether an appeal would proceed to a higher court held that the substantive law had not been incorrectly applied. 208. When the three motions were denied, complaint motions were filed with and decided by the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation. The latter ruled that the first two complaint motions were admissible in part; these were the motions filed by the private defense attorney and the court-appointed public defender on behalf of Lucas Matías Mendoza and Claudio David Núñez, respectively. The part of the motion that was allowed to go forward were the challenges asserting that the law had either not been applied or had not been properly applied. 209. The other arguments made by the respective defense attorneys were declared inadmissible. The National Chamber of Criminal Cassation relied mainly on the established judicial practice at that time, which was that cassation motions could not be used to challenge matters of fact and the weighing of the evidence. By way of example, in the case of the motion filed on behalf of Lucas Matías Mendoza, the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation held that cassation motions could not be used to challenge the weighing and assessment of testimony, the identification of detainees, and other evidentiary measures taken by the court a quo. Similarly, in the case of the motion filed on behalf of Claudio David Núñez, the Chamber of Criminal Cassation wrote that the issues raised concerning the weighing of the evidence “are not ones that can be challenged via a cassation motion.”